Do you believe this? Really?

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

Sure. Start a new thread, asking what souls and spirits are, and we can talk.

No reason you can’t say it here. Just tell me what a soul is? Is it that difficult?

Gorgias:

Until then, it seems, you’re unprepared and under-equipped to discuss this matter of Mt 27…

Lol. I’ve already presented a number of difficulties which you have been unable to make sense out of.

Gorgias:

It would have to be able to be visually perceived. Does that imply that it has physical extension? Does that imply that it has mass?

Didn’t say mass. I said a vision would have to have physical properties to be able to reflect light. And the human eye has to be able to perceive something otherwise they are just thought implanted in the brains of the disciples. Which is it?

Gorgias:

From my experience, the Catholic perspective is that the darkness and torn curtain are literal; there isn’t a doctrinal statement about the interpolation of Mk 27.

From your “experience”? So, in other words, the Catholic Church has not been able to determine which of the three are literal and which allegorical? So really all three could be allegorical, right? There’s no reason they all can’t be.

Gorgias:

 All I know is what the narrative tells me: it was experienced by those at Calvary. What I don't know is what the narrative doesn't tell me: whether it was experienced by those in Jerusalem proper, in Judea, in Rome, or in Outer Mongolia.

So the darkness could have been just on the Mountain? Even the one source you presented doesn’t include just Calvary. The smallest area he suggested was over Jerusalem. You’re going far outside mainstream Christian thought here in order to avoid the problem. I’d say the best you can hope for is Jerusalem, and eve that’s a stretch when it says “over all the land”.

And you haven’t dealt with my follow up question which was, even if it was just Jerusalem, it was controlled by Rome and would have been observed by many Romans. An apocalyptic event this astounding and terrifying, never before witnessed, but experienced by the inhabitants of a city the size of Jerusalem would not go unnoticed by Roman historians.

Again, just imagine what would happen if the sky went dark from noon till 3pm in New York tomorrow. Do you think that would be recorded in the history books?

Gorgias:

I'm sorry... 'total darkness'? Please substantiate that, preferably from a Gospel account. Short of that, I'm going to have to conclude that this is further hyperbole from you.

Substantiate that it was total darkness? What else would it be? There weren’t any street lights. Where was the light coming from?

Gorgias:

Agreed. Yet, to say that it was a “never before witnessed event” doesn’t prove your assertion that it had to have great physical extension (such that someone would have had to mention it in writing).

Well if the darkness was an apocalyptic event that extended “over all the land” that’s hardly likely to be just one mountain now is it? It’s more likely and more commonly read to be over Judea or the whole world, unless, of course, someone is aware that this creates a problem.

Gorgias:

 If we were walking around, and a 'personal raincloud' opened up above your head and started drenching you, I would be stunned -- sufficiently stunned to write about it! Yet, that wouldn't imply that even the local TV weatherman would have experienced it and would have been compelled to discuss it on that evening's news!

Again, your left grasping at straws. Like I said before, you’ll have to decide if this was a truly apocalyptic, astounding event of great enough significance to demonstrate that a god had died, or if it just went a bit darkish around the mountain, like a large thunder cloud. Either it was something quite natural and why would it be mentioned? Or, it was spectacular and witnessed by many. After all, that was the point, right? It was to be witnessed by many to demonstrate this was the son of God. And in fact, that’s really why the story of all the dead saints was presented as well: in order to show the people that no ordinary person had died.

Again, you can’t have it both ways.

 

[daler]

Matthew 15:32 Jesus summoned his disciples and said, “My heart is moved with pity for the crowd, for they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, for fear they may collapse on the way.”

The bold/underline part of this passage really struck me today at Mass. It wasn’t that people showed up and listened to Jesus and then were hungry; if that were the case, then you might be able to make the argument that they shared what they had brought. However, that’s not what the narrative tells us: it tells us that they were there three days, and they clearly had no food, since they would collapse from hunger on the way back to their homes! This isn’t about sharing food, it’s about creating food!

Gorgias,
. My friend, I understand that it is an unpopular position to defy the masses and state a logical position, especially in light of how the story has been handed down, which may well give the impression of a bunny being pulled out of a hat. (No offense intended by that remark!)

. People do have an appetite for stories with miracles and no matter what the truth is, no one has ever been able to reproduce the miracle of pulling bread and fish out of thin air, and for those who desire to think of the Lord in that light, may they continue in their beliefs.

. For me, when this story is set next to the one about the Good Samaritan, where Jesus is elevating the station of servitude to an exalted spiritual level, it is in keeping with this, and many other examples that He set, such as washing the disciples’ feet and saying that He came not to be served, but to serve. He has elevated the station of the servant above that of the master.

. As horrid as has been mankind’s record at humility and its inherent selfishness, racism, nationalism, egoism, the greater miracle would still for me to effect a change in human behavior. Anybody can pull a rabbit out of a hat, so to speak, but to get the audience to see that the folks next to them are “human”… Now thats a magician!

.

 

[daler]

Again, your left grasping at straws. Like I said before, you’ll have to decide if this was a truly apocalyptic, astounding event of great enough significance to demonstrate that a god had died, or if it just went a bit darkish around the mountain, like a large thunder cloud. Either it was something quite natural and why would it be mentioned? Or, it was spectacular and witnessed by many. After all, that was the point, right? It was to be witnessed by many to demonstrate this was the son of God. And in fact, that’s really why the story of all the dead saints was presented as well: in order to show the people that no ordinary person had died.

Again, you can’t have it both ways.

Vic,
. Again, the only value this has in light of reality is to recognize it as spiritual language. For example: “Let the dead bury their dead” clearly implies spiritual death. Hence, in light of this understanding, those who were spiritually dead became quickened spiritually, and were reawakened morally.

. How does one say that so and so was “dead” spiritually when he was walking around. What is meant by such a statement. Its like Scrooge. He was dead, but then Tiny Tim got to him, and he woke up, understood what his wealth was for, became generous. He was “alive” once again. He became one of the people, man!!

. This is what is meant by being a member of the body of Christ, right? To love thy neighbor as thyself. To feed the hungry and help the poor. Its a spiritual message clothed in a worldly story.

. But people don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth! Like in the movie. Hey! Thats why people go to movies. They want to be entertained because after working all day, they need a break!

. So people magnify their Lord into a superhuman figure who can defy the laws of nature, and gravity, and tell tall stories like Paul Bunyan with Babe the Blue Ox by his side. It isn’t enough that Mr Bunyan worked for a living, toiled and sweat and fed folks all his life. No… that just doesn’t impress people. So they’ve got to tell a taller tale than the next guy, and when somebody comes along and says: “Ye generation of vipers!” Well… they get a little peeved about having the lights come on like that. It becomes a “My daddy can whip your daddy” kind of thing, or “My Prophet is bigger than your Prophet”, and on and on the stories grow and grow…

. “But it says right here in the Gospel, don’t ya know?” So the facts get covered up with the fantasy that is in demand, and the blessed and “self” sacrifice of Jesus isn’t enough, and, after all, when the herd starts moving one way, you best get out of the way or your gonna get run over, don’t cha know…

. “I’ll get you and your little brain, Toto” How dare ye think I’m a witch! I’m not a witch. I just want your ruby red slippers, and your grey matter, and your cheese, and your bicycle, and…

.

 

[Gorgias]

People do have an appetite for stories with miracles and no matter what the truth is, no one has ever been able to reproduce the miracle of pulling bread and fish out of thin air.

So… the reason that the story about a physical miracle by the Son of God isn’t believable, is that no one since then has been able to do it? You do realize, don’t you, that this makes the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God more believable, right?

 

[Gorgias]

No reason you can’t say it here. Just tell me what a soul is? Is it that difficult?

Difficult? Nah… it’s thread drift, though. Start a new thread, if you want…

Lol. I’ve already presented a number of difficulties which you have been unable to make sense out of.

Nope. Just cause you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean that they lack sense…

Didn’t say mass. I said a vision would have to have physical properties to be able to reflect light. And the human eye has to be able to perceive something otherwise they are just thought implanted in the brains of the disciples. Which is it?

Given that its a supernatural event, we could assert that God made it possible for certain people to perceive the vision. That description doesn’t require us to make a claim for how it happens…

From your “experience”? So, in other words, the Catholic Church has not been able to determine

Nope. I’m just getting tired of doing your research for you.

Substantiate that it was total darkness? What else would it be?

The narrative doesn’t say. Just ‘darkness’. It doesn’t claim “darkness like the middle of night” or “total darkness”… just “darkness”.

Again, your left grasping at straws. Like I said before, you’ll have to decide if this was a truly apocalyptic, astounding event of great enough significance to demonstrate that a god had died, or if it just went a bit darkish around the mountain, like a large thunder cloud. Either it was something quite natural and why would it be mentioned? Or, it was spectacular and witnessed by many.

You’re making assumptions again. From the narrative, you can’t substantiate the number of people who saw it; and therefore, you cannot assert that Roman observers must be expected to have written down an account of it.

 

[Aloysium]

No reason you can’t say it here. Just tell me what a soul is? Is it that difficult? . . .

A very good question to which I could regurgitate very exotic words and concepts.

I believe you will not get your answer because it is too simple and is found in the reality of the soul itself.

Who are you? From where do you come? Where are you going?
The reality of the soul lies in part, in the concrete answers to these questions.

I cannot tell you who and what you are.
No idea will suffice.
Only you can know who it is that you are.

Or, maybe you will see it in your beloved.

 

[daler]

So… the reason that the story about a physical miracle by the Son of God isn’t believable, is that no one since then has been able to do it? You do realize, don’t you, that this makes the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God more believable, right?

“A wicked and adulterous generation asketh for a sign” Jesus

What I am saying, my friend, is that the Manifestations of God are not Carnival Show Magicians here to satisfy every fanciful whim we can come up with. When they come to educate us and elevate us spiritually, and we just want them to perform tricks and magic, we demean the true purpose for which they come - which is to open us up to who we really are, potentially, at least.

“They who have eyes to see and ears to hear” the Message of their Lord is pretty important, wouldn’t you say? When the Son of God says, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and 2000 years later we still can’t seem to do this because we’re still looking for Him to come buzzing out of the sky and feed us while sit on our backsides, too lazy to farm, and keep walking past all these poor folks its because we don’t get His message. Still!!

. “As you have done for the least of these, you have done unto Me.”

. Thats my take, friend. He wants us to live the life, not be racists full of hate, nor ignore the hungry and the poor. but that stuff is too hard, and requires something of us. So we’d rather sit around and talk about how He walked through walls and flew away and pulls food out of the air so we don’t have to do anything. Just sit around and say “Praise the Lord”

. Well, thats not my idea of belief in Jesus.

.

 

[Gorgias]

What I am saying, my friend, is that the Manifestations of God are not Carnival Show Magicians here to satisfy every fanciful whim we can come up with. When they come to educate us and elevate us spiritually, and we just want them to perform tricks and magic, we demean the true purpose for which they come - which is to open us up to who we really are, potentially, at least.

That’s fair enough. And yet, you weren’t asserting the ‘true purpose’ earlier – you were suggesting that it wasn’t a matter of ‘creating’ food, but only ‘sharing’ food:

daler:

Hence, what really happened is that He taught Jews and Gentiles to share their food together and plenty was left over at the end of the meal.

And, of course, that ‘creation of food’ is exactly the means by which the Lord chose to teach the lesson of searching for the food that satisfies eternally!

One more thought, though: Jesus isn’t a ‘manifestation of God’ – he is God.

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

 Difficult? Nah... it's thread drift, though. Start a new thread, if you want...

Aaah, you’re hoping others will jump in and help you it seems. Wouldn’t have to cause “thread drift”, you know. I’m just asking for a definition. Doesn’t sound like you have a definition that you’re confident of.

Gorgias:

Nope. Just cause you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean that they lack sense…

Lol. Ok

Gorgias:

Given that its a supernatural event, we could assert that God made it possible for certain people to perceive the vision. That description doesn’t require us to make a claim for how it happens…

No, you’re missing the point and, in fact, you didn’t address the point. It’s one or the other. Either their manifestation had physical properties which could reflect light and allow the disciples to see them with their eyes or their images were simply implanted in the brains of the disciples. You won’t pick one because either is problematic. It’s ok, I get it.

Gorgias:

Nope. I’m just getting tired of doing your research for you.

Not asking you to do research. I don’t think the Church believes the darkness or the dead saints to be allegorical. Can you show me otherwise?

Gorgias:

the narrative doesn’t say. Just ‘darkness’. It doesn’t claim “darkness like the middle of night” or “total darkness”… just “darkness”.

Lol, and you don’t think this was the kind of darkness you’d get at night? Do you really think it was just a little bit darker than normal? You’re writing your own gospel in order to avoid a problem. A failing of the sun’s light and darkness over all the land for 3 hours at noon does not suggest something like a thundercloud. Otherwise, again, maybe it was a thundercloud. You can’t have it both ways.

Anyway, point is made, I’ll let you drop this.

Gorgias:

You’re making assumptions again. From the narrative, you can’t substantiate the number of people who saw it; and therefore, you cannot assert that Roman observers must be expected to have written down an account of it.

C’mon Gorgias, I think we’ve agreed that it would have been at least over Jerusalem right? Feel free to argue otherwise. I’d like to hear it. So, if it was over Jerusalem and there were many Romans in Jerusalem, including officials, it’s pretty doubtful this astounding, apocalyptic, earth shattering event were the sun’s light failed and there was darkness over all the land demonstrating that a god had died would have gone virtually unnoticed, aside from those few people on a particular mountain.

Really, you’re trying to have it both ways, and neither works for you.

Point is made and I’ll let you off at this point.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Yes, I believe this. What’s the problem?

 

[vicwestlad]

By His Mercy:

Yes, I believe this. What’s the problem?

Well, what do you think Adam and Eve, Noah, and Moses (for example) were doing in Hades for thousands of years till Jesus came to let them out?

 

[jmcrae]

Some would have been waiting there for thousands of years, like Abraham. What do you think they were doing?

That’s a bit like asking an unborn baby to speculate about what Abraham and Sarah were doing during their lives on earth.

Having never been there, none of us has any idea what the options are for activities in the afterlife.

Why would the rich man be in agony if the final judgement hasn’t even taken place yet?

Perhaps he was undergoing Purgatory.

Scott Hahn wrote somewhere that the rich man’s concern for his brothers shows that he is not, in fact, experiencing the final damnation (in which the person wouldn’t care about anything, and would not be able to express love or concern) but that he was undergoing a radical process of purification. The Maccabees prayed for the dead to be released from the suffering of Purgatory, nearly 200 years before the coming of Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why would the rich man be in agony if the final judgement hasn’t even taken place yet?

In a series of visions, God revealed the four torments of hell to St. Catherine of Sienna. I refer to two of them here as they may apply to the rich man in agony. In this passage, God is speaking:

The first is that these souls are deprived of seeing me. This is so painful for them that if they could, they would choose the sight of me along with the fire and excruciating torments rather than freedom from their pain without seeing me.

The second torment is ceaseless regret and agonizing about what has been lost. For when they see that their sinfulness has deprived them of me and of the company of the angels and made them worthy instead of seeing the demons and sharing their fellowship, conscience gnaws away at them constantly.

These two torments would create great suffering among those who await final judgment.

The third torment of hell is the vision of hell itself and the demons who inhabit it. The fourth is the fire which never consumes and never goes out.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, what do you think Adam and Eve, Noah, and Moses (for example) were doing in Hades for thousands of years till Jesus came to let them out?

The souls who have left this life do not experience time the way we experience it.

2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

 

[jmcrae]

Vic,
. I think we’re pretty much on the same page in a lot of our thinking. I’ve been around people and listening to stories from many cultures for about 6 decades now, and one thing I’ve learned is that people like to tell stories…

. I seriously doubt that the Jewish culture is the only one on the planet that does not employ metaphorical use of language in the expression of their stories, sacred or otherwise. This is the only way I can hang on to my brain and make sense out of so much of what has been passed along from these ancient accounts.

. For me, the stories have value and hold truth, but the literal part is the bread and to get to the meat you have to open up the sandwich. The truth is hidden behind the mustard and ketchup, you know, and if you want to bite into the hotdog, theres more than just the bread on the outside.

. Literalists can’t seem to see this. Therefore, they have Jesus pulling loaves and fishes out of the air, while ignoring the very words He spoke to His disciples: “Take what you have and share it with them” Hence, what really happened is that He taught Jews and Gentiles to share their food together and plenty was left over at the end of the meal.

Jesus certainly didn’t “teach the Jews to share” - they were the best in the world for that, in those days, and if that’s all that had happened there, no one would have bothered to write an account of it - the Jews were actually famous for their generosity, from the time of Abraham. No - the fact that someone bothered to write an account of the event shows us that a real miracle took place there.

I believe in Christ, but not the “physical” resurrection. Thats just how the story got told to explain the strong sense of His presence, even after He was crucified. But people want their miracles, the physical ones, without which they refuse to believe that He could live apart from His body having been killed. Thats my take on it.

And, 10 of the 12, together with most of the people who were their followers, gladly went to the lions under Caesar Nero - for a “strong sense of Christ’s presence”?

Few people today even dare to ask for Sundays off work, never mind go gladly to be fed to the lions, yet they claim to have “a strong sense of Christ’s presence” in their lives.

No - what they experienced had to have been something tangible, life-changing, and world-shaking. Something they had never experienced with anyone else. I think it’s safe to believe them when they say they saw Him alive, and that He spoke with them, shared His authority with them, and ate with them.

 

[jmcrae]

No, you’re missing the point and, in fact, you didn’t address the point. It’s one or the other. Either their manifestation had physical properties which could reflect light and allow the disciples to see them with their eyes or their images were simply implanted in the brains of the disciples. You won’t pick one because either is problematic. It’s ok, I get it.

Using Occam’s razor to get to the simplest explanation, I simply believe what the Scriptures tell us - that Moses and Elijah entered into the afterlife in their bodies - just as the Tradition teaches us. Thus, they came to Jesus in their bodies, and they were visible to all who were near enough to see - viz, Peter, James, and John.

Lol, and you don’t think this was the kind of darkness you’d get at night? Do you really think it was just a little bit darker than normal? You’re writing your own gospel in order to avoid a problem. A failing of the sun’s light and darkness over all the land for 3 hours at noon does not suggest something like a thundercloud. Otherwise, again, maybe it was a thundercloud. You can’t have it both ways.

The Scriptures say it was dark, Josephus affirms that it was dark, and mentions that the astronomers of the time said, “We don’t know why,” so let’s assume it was dark during the day time on Good Friday. I see no reason not to.

Anyway, point is made, I’ll let you drop this.

C’mon Gorgias, I think we’ve agreed that it would have been at least over Jerusalem right? Feel free to argue otherwise. I’d like to hear it. So, if it was over Jerusalem and there were many Romans in Jerusalem, including officials, it’s pretty doubtful this astounding, apocalyptic, earth shattering event were the sun’s light failed and there was darkness over all the land demonstrating that a god had died would have gone virtually unnoticed, aside from those few people on a particular mountain.

The disciples who were running away to Emmaus said to their unknown companion, "And do you alone of all the people in the world not know what has been taking place these last three days? …] "

Clearly, it was a well-known event.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Well, what do you think Adam and Eve, Noah, and Moses (for example) were doing in Hades for thousands of years till Jesus came to let them out?

Probably enjoying it! There are two parts separated by a impenetrable boundary. The evil ones went to the side of punishment - e.g., begging for a drop of water to cool one’s tongue.

Luke 16
23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’
25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Therefore, they have Jesus pulling loaves and fishes out of the air, while ignoring the very words He spoke to His disciples: “Take what you have and share it with them” Hence, what really happened is that He taught Jews and Gentiles to share their food together and plenty was left over at the end of the meal.

Not even close. Here’s what the scriptures ACTUALLY say:

The Twelve came to Jesus and made a request. They needed food to feed hungry people, or they needed to send them away. They never mentioned or taught anything about hidden food and sharing. Are we to believe that if Jesus intended the message to be about sharing that at least one of the writers would not have stated so or shared the homily Jesus preached about sharing?

Rather, three of the Gospel writers say “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place.” daler’s interpretation suggests that there was plenty of food and no one needed to go into town to find food. Silly disciples!

Jesus and the disciples knew there was no abundance of bread hiding in secret picnic baskets. As St. Jerome said, “Wherein he calls the apostles to breaking of bread, that the greatness of the miracle might be more evident by their testimony that they [the people] had none [no food]” (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, I.2).

But if that is not enough, let’s look carefully at the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:32: “Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way’” (cf. Mark 8:2-4).

Jesus states clearly that the people had been with him in the deserted area for three days. Even if they had originally brought hidden food, it would have been eaten over the three days of being in the wilderness. Jesus clearly stated that they had no food.

It doesn’t seem likely that Jesus was completely ignorant of the situation and was mistaken in thinking the people were really hungry. We can’t believe that Jesus knew there was plenty of hidden food and was just lying about the situation to make a point.

Matthew informs us about two separate occasions of feeding the multitudes (Matt. 14 and 15). Matthew 15:36 makes it clear what happened and where the miraculous bread came from. It came from the hands of Jesus, not the people. Matthew writes “[Jesus] took the seven loaves and the fish; and giving thanks, he broke them and started giving them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.”

Is there any indication here that the bread just appeared among the crowd and kept growing as everyone pulled out food and began to share? Did the “multiplication” begin from the hands of the people to the mouths of their neighbor? Of course not. Nor did the bread start appearing first in the hands of the generous crowd and move to the hands of the disciples then to the hands of Jesus. It was the other way around. It went from the hands of Jesus who took, blessed, broke, and gave it into the hands of the disciples, who passed it to the people.

As St. Jerome affirmed, “The multitude receives the food from the Lord through the apostles; as it follows, and he gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude” (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, I.2).

When the miracle of the multiplication of loaves is told in the Gospel of John, it is immediately related to the manna in the wilderness. The people saw the connection between Moses and Jesus, the manna and the miraculous bread. Jesus was the Prophet who had been promised. The people wanted to make him a king, not because he taught selfish people to share, but because he had done a stupendous miracle like their ancestors had seen in the wilderness of Sinai.

Since the two events are tied together—especially by John—then we could ask, was the manna really a miracle in the wilderness of Sinai or had Moses simply taught the people to share? Did the Israelites all sneak out of their tents at night to scatter manna around the desert? Had they been hoarding manna in their tents or under their robes?

I don’t think so. God had performed a genuine, certifiable miracle and the people knew it. And they knew it with Jesus too.

Source:

Loaves and Fishes
by Steve Ray
catholic.com/magazine/articles/loaves-and-fishes

 

[Usagi]

Well, what do you think Adam and Eve, Noah, and Moses (for example) were doing in Hades for thousands of years till Jesus came to let them out?

I can’t speak for them, but after thinking about it for awhile, I know what I’d do if I were stuck in a waiting room together with everyone else who has ever died. I’d start having conversations and asking questions.

First of all, everyone I knew personally who died before me – family and friends – would be there, so I’d want to enjoy seeing them again and catch them up on my life (unless they’ve been able to observe events on earth). Then there are friends and family of theirs I’ve only heard about but never met in person, like my mother’s mother who died when I was still a baby or my husband’s grandparents. I hope you do not find that absurd, since I suspect seeing loved ones who’ve died is something a lot of us want out of the afterlife.

Beyond that, I have access to every historical person ever and a vast amount of time. I’d want to hear all the great stories from the people who were actually there, from Adam and Eve to celebrities from my childhood. You are obviously an inquisitive sort yourself, so I hope that rings true to you as well. (And I’m not even a historian, archaeologist, or anthropologist who has spent a lifetime wrestling with these mysteries. Can you imagine how excited they’d be to be in that situation?)

Could I fill up thousands of years that way, if my perceptions were still locked to earth time? Probably. Would the old-timers already be grumpy from having told their stories a million times? Maybe, but then there’s plenty of time to wait for them to feel like telling them again, and I’ve still got family and friends to hang out with day-by-day.

Oh, and I kind of suspect that Adam and Eve give each new arrival a personal apology for that whole “breaking the universe so it sucks now” thing.

Anyway, that’s just one possibility, but I suspect it reflects a lot of what people practically want from the afterlife – seeing departed loved ones and getting a chance to get answers to big questions that we just can’t get here. If that still strikes you as completely absurd, I’m afraid I’m of no help to you.

Usagi

 

[GEddie]

The souls who have left this life do not experience time the way we experience it.

2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Collinear time is an artifact of the entropic change in our psychikon soma; the pneumatikon soma has no time.

ICXC NIKA